Trial reportClinical oral investigations2019
Anesthetic efficacy of mental/incisive nerve block compared to inferior alveolar nerve block using 4% articaine in mandibular premolars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of different anesthetic methods for mandibular posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Pooled it
- Anaesthetic efficacy of intraligamentary injection compared to incisive nerve block using 3% mepivacaine hydrochloride: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Efficacy of Pulpal Anesthesia Using a Needle-less Syringe.Anesthesia progress · 2020Trial
- Review
- The success of using 2% lidocaine in pain removal during extraction of mandibular premolars: a prospective clinical study.BMC oral health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the onset, success rate, injection pain, and post-injection pain of mental/incisive nerve block (MINB) with that of inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using 4% articaine in mandibular premolars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The accuracy of electrical pulp test (EPT) in determining pulpal anesthesia was also examined. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was designed as a randomized clinical trial with two study arms-MINB and IANB. Injections were performed using a standardized technique. Root canal treatment was initiated 10 min after the injection. Success was defined as no pain or mild pain during access cavity preparation and instrumentation. Injection pain and post-injection pain (up to 7 days) were recorded. All pain ratings were done using Heft-Parker Visual Analog Scale (HP VAS).
resultsSixty-four patients were enrolled. The success rate of MINB (93.8%) was higher than IANB (81.2%) but the difference was not significant (p > 0.05). The onset of anesthesia with MINB was significantly quicker, and injection pain was significantly less (p < 0.05), but post-injection pain was significantly higher during the first 4 days (p < 0.001). The accuracy of EPT in determining pulpal anesthesia was 96.88%.
conclusionsMINB and IANB with 4% articaine had similar efficacy in anesthetizing mandibular premolars with irreversible pulpitis. Post-injection pain with MINB was higher than with IANB. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: MINB and IANB with 4% articaine can be used interchangeably to anesthetize mandibular premolars with irreversible pulpitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.